Atonement

[savedbygrace]

I believe it was taught in the LDS church that there are some sins that Christ's sacrifice cannot atone for and require the shedding of the sinner's own blood. I don't know if the method of execution is still by firing squad in Utah, but if it is not, or if it should be changed in the future, then how would these sins be atoned for?

[Gillebre]

It is my understanding and belief that Christ atoned for all sins ever committed. However, that doesn't mean His atonement will cover all the ones He paid for. Why? Because His atonement will not redeem us unless we repent. It requires the use of agency to accept His sacrifice.

What is the sin that God cannot forgive?

The sin that God cannot forgive is the sin not repented of.

[Rivers]

It is my understanding and belief that Christ atoned for all sins ever committed. However, that doesn't mean His atonement will cover all the ones He paid for. Why? Because His atonement will not redeem us unless we repent. It requires the use of agency to accept His sacrifice.

What is the sin that God cannot forgive?

The sin that God cannot forgive is the sin not repented of.

Can murder and the sin against the Holy Ghost not be repented of?

[Gillebre]

Let me preface my response that my experience with agency as been that every action we take changes us, one way or another.

It is my belief that when scriptures refer to those sins as unpardonable, or sins from which there is no repentance, that they mean that the guilty party becomes so hardened that they will never ask forgiveness nor follow the repentance process.

The act of taking another life, in cold blood, is so cruel, inhumane, and evil, that the result is not only loss of life but loss of connection to the Spirit (on the part of the guilty), which loss hardens their heart, permanently.

The act of sinning against the Holy Ghost, of rejecting so great a light and knowledge that you would crucify Jesus Christ again, if you could, is a sign of a heart so hard and unfeeling that they too would never ask God to forgive them, because they want nothing to do with Him.

Does that make sense?

My take on when scriptures or prophets point to sins that cannot be repented of is that they aren't indicating that God wouldn't forgive them for doing so, but rather they would not ask Him to do so, thus nullifying His ability to redeem them, by their agency.

Edit: I am not saying that all people guilty of killing someone else are unpardonable. to me, it depends on their accountability, as well as their spiritual state before it happened. I'm not the judge of how hard one's heart is or isn't.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Gillebre

[Stone holm]

It is my understanding that the doctrine you are referring to, the doctrine of blood atonement, is no longer taught by the Church. There was a period, not that long ago, when it was taught that cold blooded premeditated murder required the shedding of blood as part of the repentance process. If the government or a prosecutor. By exercise of discretion interfered with the process then the price fell on them. This is no longer taught. However, it is still my understanding that a murderer loses his chance at the Celestial Kingdom, but not the others. The Son of Perdition, however, who rebels against actual knowledge that God exists and that Jesus is the Christ and intentionally chooses evil and fights against the Church is beyond the Atonement having crucified Christ afresh in his heart. But the degree of knowledge required to commit the sin against the Holy Ghost is immense and not something had by the common murderer. The SOP are consigned to outer darkness and their ultimate fate is only known to those who experience it, although we are told it would have been better for them had they never been born, in other words better had they been cast out with Lucifer.

[Wanderer7]

I believe it was taught in the LDS church that there are some sins that Christ's sacrifice cannot atone for and require the shedding of the sinner's own blood. I don't know if the method of execution is still by firing squad in Utah, but if it is not, or if it should be changed in the future, then how would these sins be atoned for?

I know the Book of Mormon states that their just law requires the blood of murderers. However, that probably doesn't so much have to do with atonement as it does meeting society's expectations of justice. I'm not convinced that death of the individual is required for forgiveness. I'm also not convinced that man has the authority to take the life of another unless it's in the circumstances God has outlines. On other words, an uninspired civic leadership may not really have authority to take human life. I'm sure there are differing viewpoints on this. But like Gillebre said, forgiveness is contingent on repentance. Murder is hard to repent of because how do you make restitution? I'm not sure that your own death is making restitution. I suppose if it placates the family of the victim, it could be a necessary step. Then again, it may be their need for justice that needs to change. In any case, since we believe in obeying the law, a murderer can really only submit to the penalty of the law as is and hope to make restitution in the hereafter as best they can.

[Stone holm]

I know the Book of Mormon states that their just law requires the blood of murderers. However, that probably doesn't so much have to do with atonement as it does meeting society's expectations of justice. I'm not convinced that death of the individual is required for forgiveness. I'm also not convinced that man has the authority to take the life of another unless it's in the circumstances God has outlines. On other words, an uninspired civic leadership may not really have authority to take human life. I'm sure there are differing viewpoints on this. But like Gillebre said, forgiveness is contingent on repentance. Murder is hard to repent of because how do you make restitution? I'm not sure that your own death is making restitution. I suppose if it placates the family of the victim, it could be a necessary step. Then again, it may be their need for justice that needs to change. In any case, since we believe in obeying the law, a murderer can really only submit to the penalty of the law as is and hope to make restitution in the hereafter as best they can.

Not sure we can ever with complete surety say that a civic authority is uninspired given our belief that governments are instituted of God, a doctrine I am not sure I can fully support. But to state why might trigger Godwin's Law and this thread is too young to die.

[teddyaware]

I believe it was taught in the LDS church that there are some sins that Christ's sacrifice cannot atone for and require the shedding of the sinner's own blood. I don't know if the method of execution is still by firing squad in Utah, but if it is not, or if it should be changed in the future, then how would these sins be atoned for?

The Book of Mormon helps clarify our understanding of this issue...

"5 Know ye not, my son, that these things (the sins of adultery and fornication) are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness." (Alma 39:5-6)

So let's analyze the Prophet Alma's words of fatherly counsel to his wayward son, Corianton:

Point 1. Alma explains to his son that the misuse of the sacred powers of procreation by someone illuminated through the power of the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus is the Christ and the gospel is true is the second most serious sin in the eyes of God.

Point 2. The two most serious sins are similar in spirit: The first of these is the denial of and Holy Ghost through the rejection of his holy companionship, and a total turning to Satan and the dark side by someone who has received many confirmatory revelations and mighty, continuous outpourings of divine spiritual power. It is said that those who succumb to this sin develop a spirit that wishes to crucify the Son of God afresh and, if at all possible, dethrone God.

Point 3. The second of these greatest of sins is the cold-blooded taking of an innocent human life while the still powerfully indwelling Gift of the Holy Ghost shouts in the soon-to-be murderer's spiritual ears that he is about to do something so terrible that it will totally sever his relationship with God; and then that individual goes ahead and commits the murder anyway.

Point 4. In order for your question to be properly answered, please carefully consider the following words of Alma: "whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness." Please note that while Alma says it is very difficult for one who has enjoyed great light and knowledge from God to be forgiven of murder, he does not say that it is impossible to receive the forgiveness of God fo such.

Point 5. The greater the degree of light and knowledge from God, the more difficult it is to be forgiven by God for murder. Why? Obtaining the forgiveness of God through the atonement of Christ requires a genuine broken heart and contrite spirit on the part of the penitent. Therefore, it requires a very great degree of contrition and broken heartedness on the part of the once spiritually enlightened murderer so as to assure the full sincerity of his repentance.

Point 6. In light of the above, the complete willingness on the part of this kind of murderer to give up his life (rather than to beg and plead to be given life in prison) is one way to show God he is truly sorry and fully repentant. If there is any shedding of the murderer's blood present when the capital punishment is carried out, it is only emblematic of the atoning blood of Christ the sinner hopes will be applied to his soul, there is no atoning power in the blood of the guilty murderer.

Edited April 23, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

If you read Pres. Kimball's two works, "The miracle of Forgiveness" and "Faith Precedes the Miracle " . It is pretty clear about the fate of murderers. When we talk about murder we are talking about something other than the Celestial Kingdom.

[teddyaware]

If you read Pres. Kimball's two works, "The miracle of Forgiveness" and "Faith Precedes the Miracle " . It is pretty clear about the fate of murderers. When we talk about murder we are talking about something other than the Celestial Kingdom.

Forgiveness is required for entry into any of the kingdoms of glory. Look up the peculiarly LDS take on the expression "sure mercies of David."

Edited April 23, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

Forgiveness is required for entry into any of the kingdoms of glory. Look up the peculiarly LDS expression "sure mercies of David."

Every modern prophet I have read has indicated that David lost his bid for exaltation. Are you referring to the Psalm? I have only heard that interpreted as meaning he received an assurance that he was not a son of perdition which given the extent of knowledge he had was apparently a very near miss.

[ksfisher]

Every modern prophet I have read has indicated that David lost his bid for exaltation. Are you referring to the Psalm? I have only heard that interpreted as meaning he received an assurance that he was not a son of perdition which given the extent of knowledge he had was apparently a very near miss.

Being forgiven and receiveing exaltation are two different things. As stated by teddyaware, all who receive a kingdom of glory will have their sins forgiven on condition of repentance.

Murderers will not inherit the celestial kingdom, but Christ's atonement is applicable to all sins.

[Stone holm]

Being forgiven and receiveing exaltation are two different things. As stated by teddyaware, all who receive a kingdom of glory will have their sins forgiven on condition of repentance.

Murderers will not inherit the celestial kingdom, but Christ's atonement is applicable to all sins.

With that I agree.

[teddyaware]

Every modern prophet I have read has indicated that David lost his bid for exaltation. Are you referring to the Psalm? I have only heard that interpreted as meaning he received an assurance that he was not a son of perdition which given the extent of knowledge he had was apparently a very near miss.

That he was forgiven for his murder of Uriah and for his adultry with Bathsheba, but only enough to escape hell through the mercy and forgiveness of God. Through the forgiveness of Christ, he will receive a telestial glory in the mansions of the Father.

[Calm]

our belief that governments are instituted of God

CFR that LDS belief is that all governments are instituted by God (as opposed to specific governments or the principle of governing/stewardship over the general welfare of a nation/tribe/whatever group's people).

[Questing Beast]

David did not murder Uriah. He created a scenario where death was highly likely, but David left it up to chance, to "God". David's sin was taking another man's wife. The death of Uriah was an "accident", a chance thing. Murder of Uriah would have involved assassination, not death in battle.

I have never felt comfortable with all the judgments of David by those who were not there. Even being there would not allow a judgment. The prophet spoke for God in condemning David's adultery and duplicity and exposing both to the world. Then David's "payment", his comeupance began. They lost the baby. They lost their peaceful family life and his life after that was hounded to the grave by intrigues, crimes perpetrated by his children, wars and finally death almost in exile. After that we have no knowledge of his state. Adultery can be repented of and the CK obtained. Wanting someone to die and having it happen can be repented of and the CK obtained. Wanton murder cannot, as far as I know. But how many wanton murderers are there out of all those who kill? A wanton murderer would have to be doing it knowingly as the ultimate crime, and relish in it, and multiply examples to their dark heart's content. They would blow up the world if they could, slowly, agonizingly, torturing as many as possible for as long as possible, that's the mindset of the unforgivable murderer, imho, of course. I think such a being is a mythic creature. Even the horrid murderer in Idaho a few years back, who killed the parents, kidnapped the brother and sister, raped both repeatedly, killed the brother, and filmed all of his acts with them, and later showed his videos in court in his own "defense", to judge, jury and any others present, so that he could hurt them forever, destroy their peace: even that guy does not fit the criteria of what I described as the unrepentant murderer mentality. So far as I know, anyway. And he comes about as close to it as I can recollect. David, on the other hand, is almost entirely lacking in any of the "requirements" for such a darkened personality....

Edited April 23, 2013 by Questing Beast

[CASteinman]

I believe it was taught in the LDS church that there are some sins that Christ's sacrifice cannot atone for and require the shedding of the sinner's own blood.

It would perhaps be better if you quoted your source for this statement so that there could be some precision in the answers.

Please note, not everything taught "in" the Church is taught "by" the Church as truth -- or even as official doctrine.

[Stone holm]

David did not murder Uriah. He created a scenario where death was highly likely, but David left it up to chance, to "God". David's sin was taking another man's wife. The death of Uriah was an "accident", a chance thing. Murder of Uriah would have involved assassination, not death in battle.

I have never felt comfortable with all the judgments of David by those who were not there. Even being there would not allow a judgment. The prophet spoke for God in condemning David's adultery and duplicity and exposing both to the world. Then David's "payment", his comeupance began. They lost the baby. They lost their peaceful family life and his life after that was hounded to the grave by intrigues, crimes perpetrated by his children, wars and finally death almost in exile. After that we have no knowledge of his state. Adultery can be repented of and the CK obtained. Wanting someone to die and having it happen can be repented of and the CK obtained. Wanton murder cannot, as far as I know. But how many wanton murderers are there out of all those who kill? A wanton murderer would have to be doing it knowingly as the ultimate crime, and relish in it, and multiply examples to their dark heart's content. They would blow up the world if they could, slowly, agonizingly, torturing as many as possible for as long as possible, that's the mindset of the unforgivable murderer, imho, of course. I think such a being is a mythic creature. Even the horrid murderer in Idaho a few years back, who killed the parents, kidnapped the brother and sister, raped both repeatedly, killed the brother, and filmed all of his acts with them, and later showed his videos in court in his own "defense", to judge, jury and any others present, so that he could hurt them forever, destroy their peace: even that guy does not fit the criteria of what I described as the unrepentant murderer mentality. So far as I know, anyway. And he comes about as close to it as I can recollect. David, on the other hand, is almost entirely lacking in any of the "requirements" for such a darkened personality....

Yeah, its pretty clear that the Prophet at the time considered it murder, but I wouldn't want to say whether he got a ticket to the Telestial or the Terrestial -- just that he lost his Exaltation

[teddyaware]

David did not murder Uriah. He created a scenario where death was highly likely, but David left it up to chance, to "God". David's sin was taking another man's wife. The death of Uriah was an "accident", a chance thing. Murder of Uriah would have involved assassination, not death in battle.

One of the things I often do before posting on this board is do some research on the subject at hand. I do this because I don't like to be inaccurate or just plain wrong if I can help it, fearing it will damage my credibility and reputation on the board. So before posting this I did some research apropos to your assertions in the above paragraph and found the following rebuke of David by the Lord himself in 2 Samuel 12:

"7 ...thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." (2 Samuel 12)

Edited April 23, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

One of the things I often do before posting on this board is do some research on the subject at hand. I do this because I don't like to be inaccurate or just plain wrong if I can help it, fearing it will damage my credibility and reputation on the board. So before posting this I did some research apropos to your assertions in the above paragraph and found the following rebuke of David by the Lord himself in 2 Samuel 12:

"7 ...thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." (2 Samuel 12)

Do you find the last part of the last verse a bit strange in a religion that places family values as the be all end all?

[CASteinman]

Do you find the last part of the last verse a bit strange in a religion that places family values as the be all end all?

I actually find it consistent. Its not taught much -- because it is so negative -- but if we are not faithful we do not go in as part of the family. But members of our family might. They get "taken" from us and "given" to another more worthy.

So, live right, keep the covenants. If we all do that, nothing to fret about. And families are the very best way to show and teach living the covenants.

[Stone holm]

I actually find it consistent. Its not taught much -- because it is so negative -- but if we are not faithful we do not go in as part of the family. But members of our family might. They get "taken" from us and "given" to another more worthy.

So, live right, keep the covenants. If we all do that, nothing to fret about. And families are the very best way to show and teach living the covenants.

Yeah, I guess I agree, but it seems a little, I don't know...racy dont you think?

[CASteinman]

Yeah, I guess I agree, but it seems a little, I don't know...racy dont you think?

Never thought of it that way. Perhaps in part because I was not thinking of just husbands and wives but also fathers and sons and the whole family structure.

Rather than thinking it was racy, the truth is that I sort of wonder to myself, how much I would have to change and be perfected to have another given to me? Would I want them? Of course the fact that this is a challenge for me shows why I will probably not be faced with that problem.

Edited April 24, 2013 by CASteinman

[teddyaware]

Do you find the last part of the last verse a bit strange in a religion that places family values as the be all end all?

Note how in verse 8 the Lord said He was the one gave David all those plural wives. Yet, according to the Lord, David did not commit adultry until Bathsheba came along. A strange world indeed, compared to our own. Yet God says his ways are not our ways. At very least, these verses appear to vindicate the 10% of the early brethren who lived in the same divinely authorized marital arrangement. David sure proves on thing, even in plural marriage a man must learn how to reign in his passions, because it seems the natural man is never satisfied.

Edited April 24, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

Note how in verse 8 the Lord said He was the one gave David all those plural wives. Yet, according to the Lord, David did not commit adultry until Bathsheba came along. A strange world indeed, compared to our own. Yet God says his ways are not our ways. At very least, these verses appear to vindicate the 10% of the early brethren who lived in the same divinely authorized marital arrangement. David sure proves on thing, even in plural marriage a man must learn how to reign in his passions, because it seems the natural man is never satisfied.

Yeah, we'll that didn't strike me as off, what struck me as racy was the reference to them laying with other men, kind of an in your face sort of thing with women being handed around...that is what seemed kind of racy.